Politick

what does Sup Forums believe? what are acceptable political opinions on Sup Forums?

I am a non-sjw socialist. A rare thing today.

apolitics

radical centrism

Anti-white apartheid radical centrist state is the one and only Sup Forums political system.

what counts as white? how light does your skin need to be in order to be abused by your apartheid state? I have lightish skin and I don't like the sound of this, desu.

The beauty of Sup Forums is that you can believe whatever you want. However the user base in earlier years was more apolitical than it is now, but was more concerned about internet freedoms. That was basically the agenda of Sup Forums, whenever Anonymous leashed out it was to protect the freedom of opinion and expression on the internet. For example the whole Project Chanology thing wasn't initiated because Scientology operated like a cult or taught insane drivel, but because Scientology threatened other websites to take damaging information down. Nowadays though it seems to have turned into a laundry basket for contrarian new-right Trumptards that'll - if not honestly believe, then at least - publicly support the most idiotic bullshit just because it's the opposite view of their political opponents.

I am ancap.

High Tory

socialist retards need to go back to /r/teenagers and come back in about 10 years

You have to go back

According to some shitty quiz

Libertarian, and you need to go back

No socialists allowed you stupid fuckwit. Didn't the world learn how poorly a state run economic system is from the countless examples we have of it?

>what does Sup Forums believe?
ossie was right about everything

Why not decentralized market-socialism, desu?

Conservative social democrat.

we are like long lost brothers!

liberté egalité fraternité

Because like any other form of socialism it ultimately makes growth slower and less efficient because it allows for people who don't contribute to skate by off the work of those who do, thus gives an incentive for parasitism.

People are lazy, but they are greedier than they are lazy. If you want technological progress (which is what truly improves quality of life in this world, ie how a poor person in 2018 has access to most of the same technology as a rich folk whose money mostly buys them trivial things compared to the advantages of riches in the past.)

Progress is what drives advancement. You can achieve a fiscally equal society by making sure everyone gets the same amounts of profits, but it will be a stagnant society. Medical advances alone justify any inequality created by a free market.

The Holocaust was self defence

conservative liberalism, e.g. socially conservative, economically liberal

Constitutionalist.

What if I am not interested in the equality meme, and just want to lift people out of poverty and provide them with food? Does it matter if there is a small number of people who don't work very hard if the robots are all hyper-efficient anyways?

...

If you want to lift people out of poverty and provide them with food volunteer at a food bank (I do), and if you want to provide them with income then start a business and hire them.

It is your prerogative to spend your money and time how you wish, but the idea that it's morally sound to take money from your fellow citizens, on threat of arrest if they don't comply (ie taxes), and then spend it however you like (even if the intention is noble) isn't defensible. Because one day someone will take your money and do something you wouldn't have done with it yourself.

Also in all seriousness the robot idea changes nothing from an economic perspective. If robots can do everything then why do you need to steal private property, can't they just provide for everyone without government intervention?

However, we don't live in a world where robots do everything so having an ideology predicated on that reality is sort of silly at this point in time.

But is that actually a practical idea? In China they practice their meme-communism, and they are able to greatly reduce poverty over time. In the US the poverty problem is getting worse.

What I am thinking is that the government itself could use robotic labor in order to grow food and distribute it to the citizens. Unless you are a complete anarchist I'm not sure how you can square away thinking all taxation is necessarily evil. If we have to have a government and taxes to pay for it, why not use taxes on the citizenry? Unless you would prefer no government at all, but it seems to me whenever that happens in history things get worse, not better.

hmm

what are you thinking, greatest ally?

>In the US the poverty problem is getting worse

This is false in terms of percentage, and is based off the idea that an amount of money is indicative of poverty - which is largely irrelevant when you consider what I said about the lack of difference between quality of life due to technological advances. Giving people a certain number of dollars is not the largest factor in what makes their life safe and secure, it's what technology a society can provide for them.


>I'm not sure how you can square away thinking all taxation is necessarily evil

It wouldn't be if a government was voluntary, but I seriously don't see how you can square away thinking taxation is not evil when it literally is:

1. You don't get a say
2. You must give us however much we demand
3. If you do not, we will employ force against you
4. We will then spend the money however we want, without your consent (often on irrelevant wars and things that do nothing to benefit the civilian)

but

>why not use taxes on the citizenry?

What fraction is spent on citizens is less efficient than money spent towards those same objectives by the private sector because government services have no reason to try to be efficient because they can just demand more money if they aren't doing things in an efficient manner (see point 2)

>Unless you would prefer no government at all, but it seems to me whenever that happens in history things get worse, not better.

There are hardly any instances of anarchism and voluntarism in world history, so this assertion is mostly baseless. The fact remains that unregulated economies have produced the greatest advancements in human history (ie industrial revolution era)

oups :/
reuploaded

gay quiz for retards (me)

But the industrial revolution era also produced extreme horrors due to business leaders wanting to treat their workers very badly, and being able to do this.

I think there are plenty of instances of anarchy in world history. You can see historically, whenever governments break down and states fail, there is nothing stopping extreme criminality in the form of warlordism and quasi-feudalism.

I think that I agree with you that the involuntary nature of taxation is problematic at best, but if the government were to just go away, What recourse do workers have against exploitative bosses or against gangsterism and criminality? Don't you think we need at least a minimal state to keep society functional?

>imagine caring this much about anything

lol yikes

based bros

>But the industrial revolution era also produced extreme horrors due to business leaders wanting to treat their workers very badly, and being able to do this.

I would argue this is hindsight bias due to the fact that you're comparing their working conditions to modern ones. Modern working conditions are due, in part, to the miracles of advancement made in that era. The standard of workers was just as shit before the industrial era, and had been shit for ages due to the dismal state of technology.

>I think there are plenty of instances of anarchy in world history. You can see historically, whenever governments break down and states fail, there is nothing stopping extreme criminality in the form of warlordism and quasi-feudalism.

I seriously ask you to cite a particular instance if you want an analysis, but most state collapses are immediately replaced by another government (whether it's foreign or domestically lead is irrelevant). A momentary lapse of government during a transition is not indicative of an anarchist society, but is representative of a society just transforming from one form of state to another.

>if the government were to just go away, What recourse do workers have against exploitative bosses or against gangsterism and criminality?

This is probably my favorite question that people always ask.

Your line of thought appears to be:

1. I concede the involuntary nature of taxation is problematic (ie extortion)
2. But what recourse would workers have against extortion without the state?
3. Lets protect people from potential extortion by enacting a state that extorts them

Is it not better to give people a chance at avoiding extortion altogether rather than just assuming it will arise anyways, so we'll just impose it regardless?

>Don't you think we need at least a minimal state to keep society functional

I think there are some bare things that are useful, but I can't ignore the moral qualm. One must be able choose to participate.

I imagine a great number of people who feel dead inside on this site would love to feel passion about something like the passion I feel about the liberty movement.

lol your gay

I'm an anime right advocate